LexDHARAM CHAND versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 458
A
DHARAM CHAND
~
V.
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1731 of 2008)
B
NOVEMBER 5, 2008
(C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860; S. 304 B:
j
I
Dowry death - Wife has been harassed by husband and
~
c
family members for demand of more and more dowry- They
allegedly killed her by burning - F.l.R. - Trial Court found
accused husband, his mother, two brothers and sister guilty
of killing her and sentenced them to undergo rigorous
D imprisonment for seven years - Acquitting brothers and sister ..
of accused husband, High Court confirmed conviction against
accused husband and his mother but released accused
't"""
husband on ground that he had already undergone
imprisonment in terms of State Government's order on
E remission of sentence in certain cases - Correctness of -
Held: High Court was right in acquitting accused brothers and
sister of the accused husband of the deceased giving them
benefit of doubt as they were living separately - On facts, it
infers from the Affidavit submitted by the State that accused
F
husband was treated as having undergone imprisonment for
·?.
seven years by way of remission of sentence in terms of an
order of the State Government to that effect - However, in
terms of the order, remission could not be granted to an
accused of dowry death - Hence, accused husband and his
mother, in case benefit of remission has also been granted
G to her, directed to surrender to custody and undergo
remaining sentence in terms of order of the trial Court - Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - S.432 - Constitution of India,
,,
1950 - Article 161 - Remission of sentence - Grant of -
Power of State Government.
H
458
L
• --
'
-~
DHARAM CHAND v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
459
According to the prosecution, respondent No.2, in
A
collusion with his family members, was harassing his wife
for demand of more and more dowry. They allegedly
burnt her alive causing her death. Appellant, brother of
the deceased, lodged an FIR in the Police Station and the
Police arrested the accused husband, A 1, his mother, A2,
B
two brothers, A3 and A4, and sister, A5 for committing the
offence punishable under s.3048 IPC and, after
investigation, submitted the charge-sheet. The Trial Court
found all the accused persons guilty of committing the ·
offence punishable u/s.3048 IPC and sentenced them to · c
undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to '
pay fine. Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, all the
accused persons preferred appeals. High Courts
acquitted the accused brothers and sister of the accused
husband, viz. A3, A4 and AS giving them benefit of doubt,
0
as they were living separately from accused Nos. 1 and
2 and also released accused-husband observing that he
had already undergone imprisonment as sentenced by
the trial Court. Hence the present appeal.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
E
HELD: 1.1. So far as acquittal of accused Nos. 3 to 5
is concerned, on re-appreciation of evidence, the High
Court rightly held that since they were staying separately,
it could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt that
they were also party to the act in question and hence
benefit of doubt could be given to them. [Para 15] {465-
A, 8]
F
1.2. The High Court was right in dismissing the
appeal filed by accused No.1-husband and accused No.2-
G
mother-in-law of deceased and in confirming the order of
conviction and sentence. [Para 17] (465-C, D]
2.1. The High Court was wrong in observing that the
respondent No. 2, accused No. 1, husband of the
deceased had already undergone the sentence. From ~he H
460
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 15 S.C.R.
A evidence, it is clear that the incident in question took
~
place on March 14, 2000 and the High Court decided the
matter on October 30, 2006. Hence, even if the first day,
i.e. date of offence and the last day, i.e. the date of
judgment by the High Court is taken, even then seven
8 years were not over. Seven years from the date of
incident would be over only on March 13, 2007. [Para 18)
(465-D-F]
2.2. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it was
i·
stated that it was as per the Order dated August 14, 2002
c issued by the Government of Punjab, Department of
Home affairs and Justice {Jails Branch) that accused
No.1 was treated as having undergone imprisonment for
seven years, A copy of the said order was also produced
along with the counter-affidavExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.